FEMA contraventions for Hawala remittances and misdeclared pesticide imports affirmed, directors penalised but fines reduced

Investigations under foreign exchange law established that overseas payments routed through hawala in respect of differential customs dues constituted contravention of FEMA, with statements under Section 37 and electronic proforma invoices corroborating mis-declaration of pesticides as wetting agents; accordingly hawala remittances attracted liability under Section 3(b) and associated persons were held liable as an association for contravention, invoking director liability provisions. Material seized under Customs satisfied FEMA evidentiary requirements. Having regard to payment of differential customs duty with interest and appellants' financial condition, the tribunal reduced penalties and partly allowed the appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants contravened Section 3(b) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 by effecting differential payments to persons outside India through hawala and personal carriage and whether Section 42 of FEMA applies to the directors of M/s Prism for liability; (ii) If contravention is established, what is the appropriate quantum of penalty under Section 13(1) of FEMA.

Issue (i): Whether appellants committed contraventions of Section 3(b) of FEMA by sending differential amounts abroad through hawala or personal carriage and whether Section 42 applies to the directors of M/s Prism and others associated with the proprietorship.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined statements recorded under Section 37 of FEMA, corroborating material seized from appellants' custody (pen-drive) and documents/statements produced in DRI proceedings; applied Section 39 presumptions for documents seized under another law; considered authority permitting use of Customs investigation material in FEMA adjudication; evaluated jurisprudence on retracted confessions and the standard of proof in adjudication proceedings; and analysed the explanation to Section 42 which includes firms and associations of individuals, finding that the directors of M/s Prism were de-facto running the proprietorship and that the evidence collectively supports contravention findings.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the appellants contravened Section 3(b) of FEMA and that Section 42 is attracted to the directors of M/s Prism; findings on contravention are upheld against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Appropriate quantum of penalty to be imposed under Section 13(1) of FEMA in light of established contraventions and payments already made.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the payments of differential customs duty and interest made before the Settlement Commission, appellants' financial condition, and principles governing penalty assessment; it exercised discretion to mitigate the originally imposed penalty amounts while upholding liability.

Conclusion: The Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority to the following amounts: M/s Osho Organics (proprietor T. Ravi Kumar) Rs. 6,75,000; Shri Rajasekhar Rs. 10,00,000; Mr. G. Yugendhar Rao Rs. 10,00,000; Shri P.V. Sambasiva Rao Rs. 10,00,000; pre-deposits adjusted against the reduced penalties.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are partly allowed contraventions under Section 3(b) (and liability under Section 42) are upheld, but the quantum of penalty is reduced as specified and amounts deposited adjusted accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where documents and statements seized from the custody of an accused under one statute are tendered in FEMA adjudication and Section 39 conditions are satisfied, such material may be presumed and relied upon; on a preponderance standard in adjudication proceedings, corroborated statements and seized documentary evidence can sustain a finding of contravention under Section 3(b), and Section 42's explanation including firms/associations permits attributing liability to persons controlling a proprietorship established and operated by them.

---